Force v Crusaders

SammyC

<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/78648475/aussie-tv-commentator-criticises-crusaders-basic-game-plan'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/78648475/aussie-tv-commentator-criticises-crusaders-basic-game-plan</a>
 
Marto and Big Stormin Normin providing a bit of extra motivation for tonight :)

booboo

Who cares if the game plan is basic. Especially if it is winning games. And it still should be too good for the Farce.

Unco

I don't think he's wrong about the basic gameplan, the Saders attack is super predictable compared to the other 4 NZ teams, but the opposition still have to be good enough to contain them and I don't think the Force have any chance of doing that (out of the Aussie teams at the moment, only the Brumbies probably do). Their only real chance is if the Saders are tired from the travel and have underestimated them like they have the Force/Rebels a few times over the years.

taniwharugby

the Crusaders have long used the side to side stuff, but they have a bit of variation with some penetrative runners out there and is making a big difference

SammyC

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="570581" data-time="1460088414">
<div>
the Crusaders have long used the side to side stuff, but they have a bit of variation with some penetrative runners out there and is making a big difference
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Yeah we've definately changed things up a bit this year.
 
it's only taken 4 years for Blackadder to learn And if you ask me, he's pretty much copied the highlanders blueprint from last year

Cantab79

I think people are being a bit harsh on Blackadder's attack structures. The Crusaders have consistently been one of the best attacking teams in Super Rugby under his tutelage. Pretty sure they topped the NZ conference attack stats last year, despite the Hurricanes topping the table.

SammyC

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Cantab79" data-cid="570583" data-time="1460088846">
<div>
I think people are being a bit harsh on Blackadder's attack structures. The Crusaders have consistently been one of the best attacking teams in Super Rugby under his tutelage. Pretty sure they topped the NZ conference attack stats last year, despite the Hurricanes topping the table.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
 
From memory we had a few big wins last year (sharks and reds game spring to mind) but really struggled to score against the other NZ teams.
 
Think we only scored 1 try in 2 games against the Chiefs. despite having enough posession to be competitive.

No Quarter

They topped the "smash shit out of the crap teams" board while looking largely ineffective against the top sides.

SammyC

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="570585" data-time="1460089250">
<div>
They topped the "smash shit out of the crap teams" board while looking largely ineffective against the top sides.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Agree :)
 
"you can come up with stats to prove anything Kent. Fofty percent of all people know that"

Cantab79

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="No Quarter" data-cid="570585" data-time="1460089250">
<div>
They topped the "smash shit out of the crap teams" board while looking largely ineffective against the top sides.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Just saying, Blackadder always cops plenty of grief for how poorly his team attacks, but even when they top the attack stats for the entire competition people still cricticise them for being one dimensional and easy to read in attack.

taniwharugby

Dilbert has a view on this too
 
[attachment=2009:dt080508.gif]

mariner4life

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="570593" data-time="1460089847">
<div>
Dilbert has a view on this too
 
<img src="http://www.daimenhutchison.com/rugby/public/style_images/master/attachicon.gif" alt="attachicon.gif"><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.daimenhutchison.com/rugby/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=2009'>dt080508.gif</a>
</div>
</blockquote>
because of my role, i always liked this one
 
<img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kLtoI-U1SpA/TjA-TT3wD1I/AAAAAAAAC0w/VGCmC8fsWgg/s1600/1429.strip.gif" alt="1429.strip.gif">

Cantab79

I'm not making any numbers up TR.
 
I don't have last season's table in front of me, but I know if the Crusaders weren't the highest scoring team during the round-robin fixtures in 2015 than they were very close to the highest. Now people can choose to ignore this fact and point to the fact that they didn't score many tries against the Chiefs, but when it comes to point scoring Blackadder can't do much more than have his team score more points than any other team.

taniwharugby

my post was in response to SammyC's one above yours....not saying you made them up, just that was mildly related and funny!

Cantab79

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="570600" data-time="1460090904">
<div>
my post was in response to SammyC's one above yours....not saying you made them up, just that was mildly related and funny!
</div>
</blockquote>
 
No worries, I wasn't sure if you were responding to my post.

Unco

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Cantab79" data-cid="570591" data-time="1460089615">
<div>
Just saying, Blackadder always cops plenty of grief for how poorly his team attacks, but even when they top the attack stats for the entire competition people still cricticise them for being one dimensional and easy to read in attack.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Because those things aren't mutually exclusive. It's entirely possible to top the attacks stats with a one dimensional and easy to read attack, it all depends on the opposition.
 
Stats don't give you the full story.

Cantab79

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="570606" data-time="1460092970">
<div>
Because those things aren't mutually exclusive. It's entirely possible to top the attacks stats with a one dimensional and easy to read attack, it all depends on the opposition.
 
Stats don't give you the full story.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Fair enough, I just disagree that the Crusaders attack has been as bad as some people to make out. And I disagree that a team can have the best attack in the comp if they are" one dimensional" and "easy to read". That defies common sense and logic. The Crusaders may not have had the most potent backline in Super Rugby last year, but a high portion of their points were scored off set pieces and through the forwards. That's still 'attack' IMO. If anything, a team that can score through both the forwards and the backs is less one dimensional and harder to read than a team that relies solely on brilliant backline play.

Unco

No-one said they had the worst attack in the world, just the worst attack in NZ. We have high standards.

Cantab79

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Unco" data-cid="570613" data-time="1460094218">
<div>
No-one said they had the worst attack in the world, just the worst attack in NZ. We have high standards.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I didn't say that anyone said they had the worst attack in the world.
 
In 2015 the Crusaders scored more points that any other team in Super Rugby. Now I'm not suggesting that this means that they were God's gift to attacking Rugby, and yes their overly lateral, side-to-side play was frustrating at times. But I am really struggling to get my head around how people can consider the best attack in the comp to be "one dimensional" and "easy to read". How bad were all the other team's attacks if the team that scored the most points had such a poor attack?

Unco

Because, again, stats don't tell the full story. Scoring the most points doesn't mean you've got the best attack, it just means you scored the most points.

The Silver Fern

Force v Crusaders